^ 




- ^7^ 



F 685 
.U749 
Copy 1 



THE ADMISSION OF KANSAS 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. JAMES AVILSON, OF INDIANA. 



\''y 



Delivered in the U. S. House of Representatives, March 29, 1858. 



The House being in the Committee of the Whole on 
the Slate of the Union — 

Mr. WILSON said : 

Mr. Chairman: This debate is about to close. 
I therefore wish to present the reasons which 
have determined me, under all circumstances, 
to oppose the admission of Kansas into the 
Union under the Lecompton Constitution. 1 
also wish to present what I 2onceive to be the 
true cause of all the difficulties in that Ter- 
ritory, from its organization to the present 
period. For I do not conceive that it is con- 
tained in the mere refusal to submit to the 
people this Constitution, to be approved, or 
disapproved, by a direct vole. That was a 
great wrong, but still not the true cause; neither 
do I concede that the charge of rebellion made 
by the President in his special message is the 
truecause. That charge is simply untrue. But, 
sir, the true cause lies far back of the Lecoinp 
ton Constitution — far back of the charge of 
rebellion. It is contained in the bill organizing 
the Territory 
its existence, 
may be read. 

"That the Constitution, and all the laws of 

* the United States which are not locally inap- 

* plicable, shall have the same force and elVect 

* within the said Territory of Kansas as else- 
' where within the United States, except the 

* eighth section of the act preparatory to the 

* admission of Missouri mto the Union, ap- 

* proved March G, 1820, which being inconsist- 
' ent with the principle of non-iniervention by 

* Congress with slavery in the States and Ter- 

* ritories, as recognised by the legislation of 
' 1850, commonly called the compromise meas- 

* ures, is hereby declared inoperative and void, 

* it being the true intent and meaning of this 

* act, not to legislate slavery in'o any State or 

* Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 

* leave the people perfectly free to form their 

* domestic institutions in their own way, sub- 
' ject only to the Constitution of the United 
' States." 



the organic act which gave it 
Here it is : and I ask that it 



Here, sir, is the cause from whence has 
sprung all our woes. Here, the error — deep, 
radical, and iundaraenial. In what? In the 
repeal of the Missouri compromise; in the de- 
liberate declaration that the previous legislation 
of this Government in regard to its Territories 
was unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. 
I did not agree lo that repeal then — do not now. 
I did not assent to that declaration then — do 
not now. I thought I saw arms bristling all 
around the bill — I have seen it realized. 

The sovereignty of Congress over the Terri- 
tories — the only true and legitimate sovereign- 
ty — was discarded, and for what? For the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill; for the principles of ttiat 
bill which has organized sectional parties, con- 
vulsed the Territory of Kansas, deceived her 
people, and is now here embodied in the Le- 
compton Constitution. Sir, this principle of 
the Kansas- Nebraska bill, 

'sent liefore its lime 

Into I'.is hr^atliiiiK world, fcarce half made up."' 

what is it? I have a right to ask ; for its 
distinguished author and the Administration 
which came into power upon its assumed prin- 
ciple differ widely as to its meaning and force. 
I have a right to ask; for to-day, in a distant 
Territory, forty thousand American citizens, 
our own blood, and race, and lineage, are fear- 
I'ully awaiting our decision of its meaning. 
Does it mean that thirty-one States, 

'' 1,011^ wandering, in wild mazes lost," 

have groped their way into this Union, in utter 
ignorance of the great principles of this Gov- 
ernment, that as Territory after Territory has 
been organized into States, their people had no 
conception of their duties and rights? Does 
it mean that Kansas, by special favor, has had 
a right conferred on her and her people, nev- 
er before exercised or enjoyed? Then I ab^k 
for the evidence. Is it contained in her history ? 
Is it in the vote of McGee? Is that self-gov- 
ernment? Is it in the returns from .Tohiison ? 
Is that non-intervention? Is it in the Oxford 
fraud? is that popular sovereignty? Sir, I 



^v^^k, US. 



A-vi.V. f t, 



f. 



""TO 






feel " perfectly free " to say that Kansas affords 
no interpretation of its meaning. We must 
look elsewhere. 

What, then, is the principle contained in the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill ? Sir, it is " Janus " 
faced. The advocates of the bill gave it two 
constructions: one for the North, and one for 
the South; both of which, I shall show, have 
been overthrown and discarded by the Demo- 
cratic party and the Federal Judiciary. What 
is the first? It is Territorial sovereignty. That 
is the right of the people of the Territory, act- 
ing through their Territorial Legislature, to 
establish or reject slavery. This was the posi- 
tion of Mr. Douglas. That there may be no 
mistake, I shall read from his speech on the 
3d of March, 1854 : 

" I will begin with the compromises of 1850. 

* Any Senator who will take the trouble to ex- 

* amine our Journals will find that on the 25th 

* of March of that year I reported from the 

* Committee on Territories two bills, including 
'the following measures: the admission of 

* California ; a Territorial Government for 

* Utah ; a Territorial Government for New 

* Mexico ; and the adjustment of the Texas 

* boundary. These bills proposed to leave the 

* people of Utah and New Mexico free to de- 

* cide the slavery question for themselves, in 
'" the precise language of the Nebraska bill, now 

* under discussion. A few weeks afterwards, 

* the committee of thirteen took these two bills, 

* and put a wafer between them, and reponed 
' them back to the Senate as one bill, with 

* some slight amendments. One of these 
' amendments was, that the Territorial 

* Legislatures should not legislate on 
' the subject of slavery. I objected to that 

* provision, on the ground that it subverted 

' THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OE SELF GOVERNMENT, 

* upon which the bill had been originally 

* framed by the Territorial Committee. On the 

* first trial, the Senate refused to strike it out; 

* but subsequently did so, after full debate, in 
' order to establish that principle as the rule oi 
' action in Territorial organization." 

Such, sir, was the opinion of Mr. Douglas 
in 1854, and may be now; and nut only his, 
but of the Senate of the United States. Not 
only was the right conceded, upon full debate 
on the Nebraska bill, to the Territorial Legis- 
lature to legislate upon the subject of slavery, 
but even the attempt to deny the right was de- 
clared subversive of the principle of self-gov- 
ernment. Now, sir, I am no advocate for Ter- 
ritorial sovereignty. I never believed in the 
doctrine, and do not now. Stales are sover- 
eign — not Territories. But I insist that the 
Democratic party shall not disown and repudi- 
ate its acknowledged principle; and, more 
especially, when to do so subverts the princi- 
ples of self government. 

But, sir, what do we find ? What, but the 
principle of Territorial sovereignty, completely 



abandoned, overthrown — and by whom 1 By 
the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
iU action endorsed by the Democratic party. 
So that here, as well as in Kansas, a blow was 
struck against the principles of self govern- 
ment. Territorial sovereignty with that blow 
ceased to exist. Let its body pass from our 
sight. 

But to the second — the real, tangible princi- 
ple of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, universally 
recognised by the Democratic party as the 
only principle contained in the bill. It is this: 

1. That Congress has no power to legislate 
upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. 

2. That the people of the Territories, acting 
through their Territorial Legislatures, have no 
power to legislate upon the subject of slavery. 

3. That the Constituiion establishes and pro- 
tects slavery in all the Territories of the United 
States; and that the people can only decide 
upon the question of slavery when they form 
their Constitution, \vhich even then has been 
rendered impossible by the Federal Judiciary, 
and virtually denied, upon this floor, by the 
Democratic party. 

What is the effect of this policy? It is 
simply this: that every foot of soil belonging 
to the United States — that all the Territories — 
Kansas, Utah, New Mexico, Washington, Da- 
kotah, all, every inch, no matter where. North 
or South, is slave soil ; that the Constitution, 
which you and I have been taught to believe 
was ordained to establish justice, insure do- • 
mestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
defence, promote the general welfare, and 
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and 
our posterity, has yet another object and end, 
and that is to build up states of slavery and 
empires of oppression. Such is the doctrine 
of the day. I discard it; I repudiate it! Nor 
am I alone in the rejection and repudiation of 
the doctrine. The North, whose great heart 
has ever beat true to the Union, repudiates the 
doctrine; the dead and the living testify against 
it. Daniel Webster, sir, Daniel Webster, the 
Defender of the Constitution, has left his 
opinion on this subject on record, to be read of 
all men. I have it here: 

" Let me say, that in this general sense, 
' there is no such thing as extending the Con- 
' siitution. The Constitution is extended over 
' the United States, and nothing else. It can- 
' not be extended over anything except the old 
' States and the new States that shall come in 
' hereafter, when they do come in. There is 

* a want of accuracy of ideas in this respect, 

* that is quite remarkable, among eminent gen- 
' tlemen, and especially professional and judicial 
' men. It seems to be taken for granted that 

* the right of trial by jury, the habeas corpus, 
' and every principle designed to protect per- 

* sonal liberty, is extended, by force of theCon- 
' stitution itself, over every new Territory. 
' That proposition cannot be maintained at all. 



' How do you arrive at it by any reasoning or 
' deduc'liou? It can only be iirrived at by tlio 
' loosest of all possible constructions. It is 

* said that this must be so, else the right of 

* liaheas corpus would be lost. Undoubtedly 

* these rights must be conferred by law before 

* they can be enjoyed in a Territory." 

To the same eftVct Mr. Cass, in 1854, said: 
" But you cannot put your finger on the 

* power thereby ceded to carry slaves into our 

* new Territories. Does the Constitution. give 

* authority to interfere ? No, The word slave 

* is not to be found in that instrument." 

Again, Mr. Benton says: 

"We have had some slave Territories — 

* Missouri, Arkansas, Florida — into which that 

* property was carried. Was it done under the 
' Constitution ? No ; but under the Territorial 
Maw; sanctioned, not by the Constitution, 

* but by Congress, and governed after it got 
' there by the Territorial law. No one carried 

* the State law with him. He left that behind, 

* and took what he found in the Territory." 

And not only Mr. Webster, Mr. Cass, and 
Mr. Benton ; but I hold in my hand a similar 
declarauon, made in the Senate of the United 
States by one who, living, I admired above all 
men — dead, I still love and cherish as a sa- 
cred heritage his memory — I mean Henry 
Clay. I read from his speech on the compro- 
mise bill : 

" I take it for granted that what I have said 
' will satisfy the Senate of that first truth, that 

* slavery does not exist there (Utah and New 

* Mexico) by law, unless slavery was carried 

* there the moment the treaty was ratified by 

* the iwo parties to the treaty, under the opera- 

* tion of the Constitution of the United Slates. 

* Now, really I must say, that the idea • eo in 
' slaiili ' upon the consummation of the treaty 

* liie Constitution of the United States spread 
' itself over the acquired Territory, and carried 

* along with it the institution of slavery, is so 

* irreconcilable with every comprehension or 

* any reason which I possess, that I hardly 

* know how to meet it. Why, sir, these Uni- 

* ted States consist of thirty States. In fifteen 

* of them there is slavery ; in fifteen, slavery 

* does not exist. How can it be argued that 

* the fifteen slaves States, by the operation of 

* the Constitution of the United States, carried 

* into the ceded country their institution of sfa- 
' very, any more than it can be argued upon 

* the other side, that by the operation of the 

* same Constitution the fifteen free States car- 

* ried into the ceded Territories the principle of 

* freedom, which they, from views of public 

* policy, have chosen to adopt within their 

* limits? Let me suppose a case. Let me 

* imagine that Mexico had never abolished sla- 

* very there at all. Let me suppose that it was 

* existing there, by virtue of law, from the shores 
of the Pacific to those of the Gulf of Mexico, 
ut the moment of the cession of those coun- 



' tries to us by the treaty in question. With 
' what patience would gentlemen, coming from 
' the slaveholding Slates, listen to an argument 
' which should be urged by the free States, that, 
' notwithstanding the existence of slavery with- 
' in these Territories, the Constitution of the 
' United States, the tnomeni it operated upon 
' an<l took elfect within the ceded Territories, 

* abolished slavery and rendered them free? 
' Well, is there not just as much ground to 

* contend, where a moiety of the States are 
' free, and the other moiety are slaveholding 
' States, that the principle of freedom which 

* prevails in the one class shall operate, as the 
' principle of slavery, which operates in the 
'other class of Slates, shall operate? Can 

* you, amidst this confiict of inter-^sts, of prin- 
' ciples, and of legislation, which prevails in 
' the two parts of the Union — can you come to 
' any other conclusion than that which I uq- 
' derstand to be the conclusion of the public 
' law of the world, of reason, and of justice, 

* that the status of law, as it existed at the mo- 

* ment of the conquest, or acquisition, remains 
' unchanged, until it is altered by the sovereign 
' authority of the conquering or acquiring pow- 
' er? The laws of Mexico, as they existed at 

* the moment of the cession of the ceded Terri- 
' lories to this country, remained their laws 

* still, unless they were altered by that new 
' sovereign power under whicli this people and 
' these Territories came, in consequence of the 

* treaty of cession, to the United States." 

So spoke those distinguished statesmen; and 
I prefer to err, if error it be, in such company, 
than approve and endorse the late opinion of the 
Federal court, which is aUke repulsive to every 
principle of humanity and subversive of all 
ideas of justice. 

But, let us look more closely at this doctrine. 
Not only does it establish slavery in all the 
Territories, but it goes still further: it over- 
throws and subverts the last vestige of popular 
sovereignty. Has not this been illustrated in 
Kansas — the Schedule and the Lecomplon 
Constitution? For, if slavery goes with the 
Constitution into the Territories, will it not 
gradually, but certainly, become a part and 
portion of the social and political systems of 
the Territories ? Is it not so with Kansas to- 
day? And if so, how can the people be free 
to adopt or reject slavery when they form their 
Constitution? In no sense can the people be 
" perfectly free," or live in any manner. They 
are called upon to decide as loan institution al- 
ready established — i-sinblished by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States; and when ihey de- 
cide, what does it amount to? That slavery 
diall no longer exist? No! simply, that no 
more slaves shall be introduced into the Stale 
so to be organized. But, what of the slaves 
already there — carried there, as is alleged, by 
the Constitution of the United Siales? How 
can the decisiou of the people aflect them? 



Arp the slaves of the Territory still to remain 
slaves in the State? Is the slavery, alleged lo 
be established by the Constitution of the United 
States, still to continue in the State? "Cer- 
tainly," responds the President. What say 
the slaveholders of the South, and those inter- 
ested in its perpetuation ? '* Certainly ! it is 
a vested right," If so, it is not only absurd, 
but emphatically untrue, to say that the peo- 
ple are free to form their Constitution, at any 
time, upon the question of slavery. 

But this policy now governs and controls the 
country. Will it continue, and become its fix- 
ed policy ? If so, then the last free State 
has been already added to the Union. 

I now come immediately to Kansas. When 
that Territory was organized, her people, not 
only by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, but by every 
principle of our Government and its whole 
systt'm, were entitled, first, to suffrage ; second, 
to the right of representation ; third, to the 
right of legislation; and fourth, to the right 
to frame a State Constitution m their own way. 

I now declare that each and eve>-y one of 
these rights has been denied, wrested from 
the people of Kansas, from the day of her or- 
ganization to the presentation of the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution in this House, and up to the 
present hour. 

Let me again state these rights: suffrage, 
Representation, legislation, and the right to form 
their own Constitution. These were the rights 
of the people of Kansas. Now for the proof 
that these rights have been denied. 

It is an admitted fact, that with us the peo- 
ple are the source of all political power. How 
is this power to be exercised and delegated ? 
By suffrage! Then, beyond all doubt, ttve high- 
est expression of the power of a free people is 
in the elective franchise. It is the true " popu- 
lar sovereignty." 

Sir, in Athens, her citizens stoned to death 
the intruder upon the councils of the people. 
Deny this right, no matter how, by force or 
fraud, and you enslave a people. Apply this, 
then, to Kansas, and what is the result? 

I ask, when, where, how, and at what time, 
and in what manner, have her people ever ex- 
ercised the right of suffrage? Did they in the 
election for Delegate? Did they in the first 
election for a Territorial Legislature? Did 
they in the election for members of the Con- 
stitutional Convention? No, sir; in neither. 
At the first election, one thousand seven hun- 
dred and twenty-nine illegal votes were cast; at 
the second, four thousand nine hundred and 
eight; at the third, one-half, nay, more than 
half of the Territory was disfranchised. So, 
then, the highest right of an American citizen 
has been denied to the people of Kansas ; the 
right of suffrage, without which there cannot 
be a iree government ; and this, too, in a man- 
ner and by means which have dishonored the 
American name. 



Now as to the right of representation. I 
deny that the people of that Territory ever had, 
prior to 1857, delegates of their own choice and 
selection, the result of their own free will. 
Look at the delegates of the Legislature of 1855. 
How came they there? By the voice of the 
people of Kansas ? By no means. I am safe 
when I say that their election was the result of 
an almost universal overthrow of the rights of 
actual citizens in the Territory. Sir, scarcely 
a member of that body held his seat except by 
certificates obtained by fraud. There were 
eighteen districts in which the people of Kan- 
sas were to elect their first Legislature. If ever 
there was a time when they should have been 
ie/lt " perfectly free to regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way," it was then ; but 
were they? Far otherwise. Armed men! — 
why armed? what men? — entered the Terri- 
tory, and usurped the rights of the actual citi- 
zens there, and by their votes elected the mem- 
bers of that Legislative Assembly. Point me, 
if you can, to another such outrage. Look 
at all the other Territories, from the day of 
their organiziition to their admission into the 
Union, running back half a century, and there 
is no parallel. Thus, this right of representa- 
tion, dear to every American citizen, was vio- 
lated, and the people of Kansas denied its en- 
joyment. 

And now I appeal to Virginia, true and loy- 
al to liberty in the days of the Revolution ; true 
and loyal, I trust, to the Union now — I appeal 
to Virginia, if such invaders should stand in 
such a manner upon her soil to strike down 
her rights and dictate her laws, if every true 
son would not arise, and repel from her bor- 
ders her invaders, or perish in the attempt? 

I appeal to South Carolina, so quick and 
impatient of wrong, real or imagined — would 
she unresistingly submit to have her ancient 
privileges seized, and her sovereignty trampled 
under foot? Would she lamely, quietly, bear 
such a wrong? No, never! while the memo- 
ries of the Revolution still linger with her peo- 
ple. But Kansas was weak and defenceless ; 
her chizens few and wide apart ; the shadow 
of Executive interference fell but to wither 
and prostrate her, and to-day that power seeks 
to force upon her people a Constitution lo 
which a clear and undisputed majority is un- 
compromisingly opposed. 

But how as to that other right of American 
citizens, the right of legislation, to enact, 
through their legally-elected representatives, 
their own laws ; have the people of Kansas had 
this right? No. sir! How could they, when 
suffrage was denied? How, when they had no 
choice as to the delegates? Let us look to the 
record. Laws, to be obeyed, must always re- 
flect the wishes and feelings of those to be gov- 
erned by them. What was the character of 
the laws of this Territory, passed by the usurp- 
ing Legislature ? 1 do nut speak uf the great 



body, but parlicularly of those in rpgard to 
slavery : what were lliey, and what their char- 
acter? Were they just and humane? No, 
sir; no! It was felony to write, felony to 
speak, felony to publish, felony to print, and 
felony to circulate, anything against the insti- 
tution of slavery ; and not only that, but test 
oaths of the most repulsive character were im- 
posed. Would you ask obedience to such 
laws? Would you ask a majority to submit 
to such enactments? Would you ask submis- 
sion from the people of Kansas, when you well 
knew that a majority of her people were op- 
posed to that institution? If so, you would 
much mistake them, for they did refuse obedi- 
ence. They relused, and I rejoice that they 
did. They resist still, and you may go and tell 
your President that they will continue to resist. 
Ay, sir, go tell him that he may place armed 
soldiers in the doorways of every dwelling in 
Kansas; he may trample down beneath the 
feet of his dragoons her unoffending citizens; 
he may force through this House a Constitu- 
tion they abhor, and have rejected by ten 
thousand majority ; he may do all this, but 
when he has accomplished his work, he still 
has not conquered nor crushed her people, nor 
compelled their obedience to unjust laws and a 
fraudulent Constitution. Something, sir, must 
be pardoned to the spirit of libeity. 

Having thus, Representatives, shown that 
popular sovereignty and Territorial sovereign- 
ty have been completely subverted by the Fed- 
eral Judiciary, and having shown that practi- 
cally in Kansas the same principle of seli-gov- 
ernment and popular sovereignty has been 
overthrown — first, in the election of a Dele- 
gate not the people's choice; second, in the elec- 
tion of members of the Legislature by armed 
men not citizens of the Territory; third, in a 
code of laws repulsive and not sanctioned by 
the popular voice — I ask your consideration of 
the last act of usurpation, the result of three 
years of mal-administration and fraud — the 
Lecompton Constitution. What is a Con- 
stitution ? It is a system of fundamental rules, 
principles, and ordinances, for the government 
of a State. In the State, it is the supreme law. 
Whence does it receive its vitality ? From the 
source of all power — the people. Hence, the 
great question for us to decide is, is this the 
Constitution of the people of Kansas? Is this 
their embodied supreme law? If it is, admit 
Kansas; if not, reject this Constitution, How 
shall this be determined ? How shall we ar- 
rive at a correct conclusion? By restricting 
ourselves to the Lecompton Convention, and 
its acts alone? By inquiring simply whether 
the assumed principles of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill have been violated? By no means ; but 
by wider investigations, if need be, embracing 
the whole history of the Territory. Nothing 
should be overlook-^d, which would throw light 
upoa thia question. I repeat^ then, is this 



the Constitution of the people of Kansas? No! 
it is not of the people, nor from the people. If 
so, why the indignant protest of the 4th of 
.January? Why ttie strange phenomenon of 
the people of a whole Territory rising up and 
uniting themselves in opposition to this meas- 
ure? No. sir; the Constitution is a fraud. It 
is the work of a minority, and a fraudulent 
minority at that ; the offspring of force, vio- 
lence, filoodshed, invasion, usurping Legisla- 
tures, illegal acts of those Legislatures, and, 
above all, executive oppression. Is the proof 
demanded ? Sir, it is strewn along the path- 
way of Kansas, 

"Tliiclf as nntumn.ll 
Leaves that s row the br :oks of Vall-.iiiilirooa." 

It is a part of her public history. That 
history is not " hid in a corner." Its pages 
are open to all; and he is wilfully blind who 
will not see tor himself. If, then, this is not 
the Constitution which her people wish, shall 
it receive the endorsement of Congress ? This 
is the main question. Here it must be met, 
and here answered. This is the last tribunal. 
For myself, I answer, reject this Constitution, 
Why ? For the reason, first, that the Lecomp- 
ton Convention v/as an vnnutliorizcd, Ulei:;al and 
irrcspomible body. What was its foundation? 
The act of the Legislature of 185G. Here is 
the source. And wliat is it worth ? What re- 
spect are the acts of that Legislature enti- 
tled to? None whatever. It was an illegal 
Legislature; it began, as I have already 
shown, in the overthrow of free suffrage, and 
ended in fraud. How, then, can validity be 
given to its acts? Not by the recognition of the 
President; not by the recognition of Govern- 
or Geary ; nor yet by that of Governor Walk- 
er. No recognition can give validity to 
fraud. It vitiates everything it touches, and 
therefore vitiates the Legislature of 1856. If 
the Legislature was illegal, then was also the 
Convention. The one supports the other; the 
Constitution rests upon the Legislature, and 
the Legislature upon fraud. A beautiful found 
ation, indeed, whereon to build the glorious 
fabric of a State! Endorse this Constitution, 
and what then ? You endorse the legality of 
the Legislature, and declare that the people of 
Kansas have been perfectly free to govern them- 
selves " in their own way." I shall give no 
such endorsement — utter no such declaration. 
To me, the one would he a liisgrace, the other 
a falsehood. I prefer to speak of it with truth ; 
and, so speaking, say that the Legislature of 
1856 and the Legislature of 1855 both had 
their existence in the violated rights of the peo- 
ple of Kansas ; that their laws have no validity ; 
are not entitled to the respect of this House nor 
to that of the people of that Territory. Rut, 
if the Legislature was even legal, what then? 
What authority had it to authorize and estab- 
lish a Government? Certainly not in the Kan- 
sas-Ntbraska bill ; that simply waa the or;janic 



6 



act of the Territory ; and to assert that the au- 
thority is derived from the organic act is to as- 
^5ert that the Legislature can set aside, subvert, 
and overthrow, the very act from wliich it de- 
rives its existence. What called into existence 
the Legislature of Kansas ? Tlie organic act. 
W hat powers of legislation are granted to the 
Legislature? Such as are conferred by the 
organic act, and none other ; and nowhere has 
it conferred the power to create a new Govern- 
ment. All the Government that Kansas had or 
could have was the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
This was the charier of her rights. No Legis- 
lature could go beyond it; neither could the 
people of Kansas, except by permission of 
Congress. 

It IS clear, then, that the law authorizing the 
Constitutional Convention was beyond tlie pow- 
er of the Legislature of Kansas, and that the 
Convention iiself that assembled at Lecompton 
was unauthorized. The Constitution can amount 
to nothing more than a petition — a petition i'or 
the redress of grievances. Sir, if the petitions 
of the people of Kansas had been respected 
years ago, we should not now be compelled to 
redress this sorest of all grievances — the Le- 
compton Constitution. But I deny that it even 
amounts to a petition. W ho are the petition- 
ers ? Are they the people of Kansas? Are 
they even the agents of the people of Kansas? 
No, sir ; the people repudiated both the Legis- 
lature and the Convention. Representatives, 
will you do less? But, sir, the people of Kan- 
sas did petition — petitioned through the Tope- 
ka Constitution. Oppressed and broken down — 
disheartened and discouraged, crushed with 
unjust laws — within sight of their burning 
houses, and surrounded by a paid hireling 
soldiery, they met and pethioned; they sent 
their petition here, and it was rejected. I only 
ask the same fate for this Lecompton Consti- 
tution ; it being granted, I shall be content. 

But I object to this Constitution for another 
cause — that is, slavery. And what of slavery 
in the Lecompton Constitution? Why, sir, it 
comes to us in its most detestable form ; not 
bold and defiant, as if right, but shielding itself 
behind the forms of law, and skulking behind 
iraud and forgery for its protection. vVhat 
further? At the very ou'.set it announces a 
proposition, so untrue, and utterly at variance 
with justice and humanity, that had it not been 
preceded by the opinion of the Supreme Court, 
I should have come to the conclusion that all 
human fanaticism and refined indifference to 
the rights of man had found an appropriate 
refuge in the Lecompton Convention. What 
is the proposition? The inviolability of proper- 
ty in human beings; and you and I, and all of 
us, have so to declare, or reject this Constitu- 
tion. And not only is property in a slave, and 
his increase forever, inviolable, but before and 
higher than any constitutional sanction. Ap- 
prove this proposition, and what follows ? Uni- 



versal slavery. State lines will be no protec- 
tion ; State Constitutions will be no shield ; 
State rights no guard ; slaves as property will 
be as secure in the sixteen free Stales as in the 
fifteen slave Stales; for it assumes that slave 
property is not, and cannot be made, an excep- 
tion or governed by different rules than any 
other property. I dissent wholly. 

Why, sir, if slavery and the right to hold 
slaves are before and higher than any consti- 
tutional sanction, why not make that issue? 
Why evade it by claiming, wherever it can be 
done, "constitutional sanction?" Come, we 
accept the challenge. Erase from this Le- 
compton Constitution the " constitutional sanc- 
tion " of slavery, and you will disarm, to a 
great extent, opposition to its reception. Erase 
from the Constitution of Arkansas, South 
Carolina, and other slaveholding States, the 
"constitutional sanction" of slavery, and you 
will offer a tribute to humanity. Erase from 
the Constitution of the United States the " con- 
stitutional sanction" ofthe recapture of fugitives 
from service, and, sir, the conscience and the 
duty of the North will no longer conllict. Ah ! 
gentlemen of the South, I advise you to cling 
to " constitutional sanctions," and not trust 
yourselves and your property upon the uncer- 
tain tenure of inviolabiUty. Now, I hold this 
to be true : that slavery is merely a local in- 
stitution, and that slaves are held and govern- 
ed by the laws of the several States that recog- 
nise its existence. With them, I and we have 
nothing to do. It is conceded that slavery in 
the States is beyond the interference of the 
Federal Government, or the States, or the peo- 
ple of the States which do not recognise its 
existence. It is conceded that they are prop- 
erty in those States — made so by legislation. 
But, sir. State legislatioli cannot make them 
property everywhere. Its light is restricted — 
it is limited. It cannot go beyond State lines. 
Beyond those limits, the slave is a man, and no 
longer property. Such I understand to be our 
laws, our judicial decisions, and the rule of 
action in the free States and of the civilized 
world ; and, sir, it is too late to attempt to pro- 
mulgate any other and a different doctrine. It 
cannot be done. The inviolability of slave 
property is against the universal laws of right, 
humanity, and justice, and cannot prevail. 
But slavery is in Kansas, established by this 
Constitution ; and, as far as this Constitution 
is concerned, as firmly established as in any 
slave State in this Union. And, now, what is 
demanded ? Why, sir, that Kansas, under the 
Lecompton Constitution, shall be admitted into 
this Union — admitted, too, against the will of 
her people, with Slavery perpetuated iu her 
limits, and the inviolability of slave property 
written in her Constitution. Shall it be done ? 
Representatives of the American people, will 
you tamely yield to the Executive demand ? 
Justice forbids, the people forbid; let their 



voice be respected. 



I ask you, sir, [address- i • unless the Convention submit the Constitu- 
ing Mr. Gilmer, of North Carolina,] South- 1 * tion to the vote of all the actual resident sei- 
eru man as you are — honorable and high- j ' tiers of Kansas, and the election be fairly and 
minded as I know you to be — shall it be done 1 1 * justly conducted, the Cunstitvlion will be, and 
Does Southern honor demand if? No! Uo ' ouglit to be, rejecUd by Congress." 



Southern rights demand it '? No ! Then why, 
for even a single hour, impose upon a people, 
an American people, a Constitution they ab- 
hor? 

But, sir, there is another objection to the 
Lecompton Constitution — the refusal of the 
Convention to submit that instrun>ent to the 



So, also, did Calhoun— .lohn Calhoun, the 
dictator — to the people of Douglas county, 
when a candidate for delegate to the Constitu- 
tional Convention. But when the Lecompton 
Convention met, and framed the instrument 
now presented here, then, for the first time, it 
claimed to be sovereign, and, as such, inde- 



popular judgment, and more especially when i pendent of the people, and not responsible to 
ii IS known that a large majority of the citi- 
zens of Kansas are inflexibly opposed to it. 
The right of the people to form their own Con- 
stitution in their own way is no new thing ; 
and, sir, it is a right that has never been un- 
til now denied, and, what is remarkable, de- 1 then how could the Convention claim in itself 



their action. Let us look at this sovereignly 
claimed by the Convention. Whence its ori- 
gin ? How was it derived ? From a Territo- 
rial Legislature ! Did that Legislature repre- 
sent a sovereignty? If so, what? If not. 



nied by the peculiar and exclusive friends of 
the Kansas- Nebraska bill. Now, sir, I, for one, 
do not claim the right under that t)ill, of which 
I am no advocate. 1 deplored its passage — it de- 
stroyed the peace and harmony of the country. 
But I claim tlie right on the higher ground of 
the sovEREiGNTv OF THE PEOPLE, a principle 
as old as the Constitution and the Union ; and 



a power greater than the Legislature which 
called it into existence ? 

But, again, of what was this Convention 
composed? Delegates. Delegates to do what? 
To frame a Constitution, not to ordain one; 
not to set a new Government into operation, 
but to distribute the different powers — the leg- 
islative, the judicial, and the executive, and 



too grand in its proportions to be dwarfed into i then unite the whole in one Constitution, and 
the narrow compass of the Kansas-Nebraska | refer their work to the people to approve or 
bill. 1 repeat, I claim it on the higher ground j reject. This I conceive to be the true charac- 
of the sovereigutv of the people — that priuci- ter of a Constitutional Convention, 
pie which has built up this, the freest and hap- 1 But, sir, these delegates — how came they at 
piest Government on earth ; until we now, as j Lecompton ? Did they represent the sover- 
was said upon a memorable occasion, have I eignty of Kansas? Let us see. I know that 
realized the description of the edging of the the President has said in his messag-e that a 



buckler of Achilles 

" Now llie broad shield (foinplele the artist crowned 
With his Ih-I hand, Had poured tin- oi-ean round ; 
In livin? silver seemed the waves to rull. 
And ueai the buclcler's verge and bound the whole." 

This right has never before been a debatable 
question. It always has been admitted. 1 do 
not mean, sir, that in every instance it has been 
exercised — not at all ; for we have now States 
in the Union, republican States, admitted 
without their Constitution having been sub- 
mined to the people. But in all these cases 
there was no conflict between the Convention 
and the people. Their Constitutions clearly 
embodied their will; hence no wrong was 
done by waiving the submission thereof. 
But, sir, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill pass- 
e<l, and when the policy of that bill became 
the policy of the country, nothing is more 
clear than the fact that, by its whole intent, 
every Constitution thereafter framed should be 
submitted to the people for their ratification or 
rejection. It was the great element of the bill. 
And, so far as Kansas is concerned, pletJge 
after pledge has been made to that effect. The 
President and the Cabinet pledged themselves 
to a full and fair submission. Gov. Walker, 
in his inaugural address, did the same. He 
went further, and declared: 

•' I repeat, then, as my clear conviction, that 



large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did 
not think proper to register their names. I 
know he has said they neglected to vote at the 
election for delegates. I know he has said 
that an opportunity to do so was f^iirly afford- 
ed. 1 know he has said their refusal to avail 
themselves of this right could not aflect the 
legality of the Convention. This is extraordi- 
nary language — and is it true ? No, sir. Now 
for the evidence. There were thirty-four coun- 
ties from which to elect delegates to the Con- 
vention. The act of the Legislature required 
that in each of these counties a census should 
be taken and the votes registered. Was it 
done? In nineteen counties the census was 
never taken. In fifteen counties there was no 
registry of voters. And why this failure? Was 
it from any act of tlie people ? No ; it was the 
act of partisans — partisan Pro-Slavery judges, 
partisan Pro-Slavery sheriffs ; and therefore 
it was that the voters in nineteen counties — a 
majority of all the voters in Kansas — were dis- 
franchised, did not cast one single vote for any 
delegate to the Convention that framed the 
Lecompton Constitution. Is it denied? I 
produce the evidence of Gov. Walker : 

" In nineteen of these counties there was no 
' census, and therefore there could be no such 
* apportionment there of delegates base(i upon 



8 



* such census. And in fifteen of these counties 

* there was no registry of voters. These fifteen 

* counties, including many ol'the oldest organ- 

* ized counties of the Territory, were entirely 

* disfranchised, and did not give, and (by no 

* fault of their own) could not give, a solitary 

* vote for delegates to the Convention. Trie 

* result was superinduced by the fact that the 
' Territorial Legislature appointed all the sher- 

* ifis and probate judges, in all these counties, 

* to whom was assigned the duty, by law, of 

* making this census and registry. These offi- 

* ceirs were political partisans, dissenting from 

* the views and opinions of the people of these 

* counties, as proved by the election in October 

* last." 

But it is contended that the Constitution — 
the slavery clause — was submitted to the peo- 
ple. How submitted? How endorsed? Sir, 
the submission itself was a conspiracy against 
the people of Kansas — and the endorsement 
was worthy of the conspirators. Look at it — 
the Constitution with slavery, the Constitu- 
tion without slavery. Here is a duplicity that 
would liave delighted even Machiavelli. Vote 
for or vote against, and still it is the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution, and still it is slavery ! And 
the voters — who were they ? Oxford responded 
with twelve hundred and twenty-six ; ^shaw- 
nee with seven hundred and twenty-nine; 
Kickapoo — loyal, devoted, and prolific Kicka- 
poo — with one thousand and seventeen, all 
fraudulent ! 

Sir, is not this a humiliating record? Yet 
upon this record and this submission, with 
the great fact full in his view, that, on the 
4th day of January, ten thousand two hun- 
dred and twenty -six votes, one after another, 
were cast against the Lecompton Constitution, 
the President urges and demands the admis- 
sion of Kansas into the Union as a State. 

In view of all the facts, I conceive that it 
was the clear duty of the Convention to sub- 
mit the Constitution to the full and direct vote 
of the people. True, it would have been re- 
jected, overwhelmingly rejected ; but what 
of that? The people of Kansas had the 
right to reject it. This right is denied them. 
1 therefore ask its rejection here — in this 
House ! Let Congress reassert again its sov- 
ereignty over the Territory ; pass an ena- 
bling act, just, wise, and equitable, in all 
of its provisions ; secure to each citizen the 
full and free exercise of the right of suflfrage ; 
guard all from fraud, or ascertain in any other 
manner the clear wish of the people ; adopt, if 
you please, the bill of the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Kentucky, and the day will not be 
far distant when Kansas will ask for admis- 



sion into the Union, not chained and manacled, 
but as a free, sovereign, and independent Stale, 
with a Constitution bearing the impress of the 
will of her own people. 

Representatives of the slaveholding States, 
do you desire such a result ? Do you wish to 
bring bark peace and harmony, not only to 
Kansas, but to the whole Union? If so, no 
better occasion ever offered than now. If you 
force this Constitutioti through the House, 
what advantage will you gaui ? Will it be 
slavery in Kansas? It cannot exist there! 
Slavery cannot be perpetuated over an unwil- 
ling people. It will be overborne, scattered to 
the winds by the first expression of the popu- 
lar will. M'ill it be greater security of slavery 
in the States ? Establish once this law of vio- 
lence, disregard the earnest and solemn appeal 
of Kansas, and the day may come when the 
same law of violence may strike you down, dis- 
regard your rights, and even peril your homes. 
Will it localize this distracting question ? Fa- 
tal delusion ! Three years ago, to localize it, 
you divested Congress of its sovereignty. You* 
asserted that the people of the Territory should 
decide their domestic institutions for themselves. 
Will you now divest the people ol tliis right, 
and attempt to localize slavery in the State? 
Do so; but you will not succeed. Slavery in 
Kansas cannot be localized, nor peace secured, 
by any such subterfuge. 

Representatives of the free States, Kansas 
demands justice ; shall it be denied? She de- 
mands that her voice may be heard, and priv- 
ileges respected ; shall they be refused? She 
demands the right to form her own Constitution 
in her own way, and by her own people ; shall 
it be withheld? Will you crush her to gratify 
the Executive ? When you have done so, 
see to it that you are not yourselves ground to 
dust between the upper and nether millstone 
of popular condemnation! 

Representatives of the North and South, of 
every section of this broad confederacy, upon 
your decision rest the hopes and fears of an op- 
pressed people. Let it be made. If against 
Kansas, I feel assured, I know indeed, she will 
right her wrongs at the sacrifice of treasure, of 
blood, and of life! If for Kansas, then justice 
will be done. But, in any event, I call upon the 
House, each member of the House, if you 
would maintain the Constitution and the 
Union — if you would preserve and perpetuate 
the blessings of liberty — if you would advance 
the honor, the greatness, and the peace of our 
common country — nay, more, if you would 
avert civil war — I ask, I implore, I demand, 
that you reject this Constitution! 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTER 
1858. 



LIBRARY OF C0NGRE5 




016 094 420 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



:i: 



016 094 420 1 # 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 



nt- A r vft. 



